Now that I am retired having been many years a magistrate with a long awareness of the declining freedoms enjoyed by the ordinary citizen and a corresponding fear of the big brother state`s ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties I hope that my personal observations within these general parameters will be of interest to those with an open mind. Having been blogging with this title for many years against the rules of the Ministry of Justice my new found freedom should allow me to be less inhibited in these observations.

Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Thursday, 17 April 2014

It
is widely known that Windows XP is now in effect ex Windows XP. I
have been using mainly an eight year old desktop and also a ten year
old notebook as my main and back up computors both running XP Pro
service pack 3 and supposedly virus protected. Indeed the desktop came originally with Vista installed but I had XP substituted instead. Last week a trojan
caused my desktop to go gradually down from having to start in safe
mode to now not booting up at all. Today my notebook is operating
only in safe mode but for how much longer I don`t know. I am off on
a fairly long holiday next week and no more posts will be appearing
until the second week in May when I hope by then to have mastered the
workings of Windows 8.1 operating in a new all in one machine.

Monday, 14 April 2014

It has been an interesting few days for
observers of legal news as it impinges albeit indirectly on the daily
activities of magistrates. Nigel Evens, a high ranking Tory politician who has
admitted to behaviour which should shame anyone who has a seat in the elected legislature of
this country but who has been cleared of activities for which he was sent to
trial, has railed against the imposition
of legal costs of his defence which, he claims, will empty his piggy bank of
his life savings.There have been
arguments in the media that the CPS was acting unfairly in hiring a top class
Q.C. to argue its case.This is
untenable.If CPS had lost the case and it had been led by a
less experienced barrister the cry might have been that inexperience had
allowed a guilty man to go free.The CPS
must stand by its own decision making process including the decision whether or
not to charge on the evidence at hand and the prosecution code of conduct. But,
and it`s a big but, the other two ramifications of this trial and verdict are
more open to reasoned debate.There has been
a suggestion often repeated subsequent
to such acquittals that there should be anonymity for those accused of sex
crimes as there often is for the complainants in such cases.When open justice in this country is subject
to ever increasing salami slicing by the twin bacon cutting blades of sacrifices to “victim
centred justice” and anti terrorist
orientated secrecy another avenue to apply somewhat oppressive witness
protection measures for an accused would be a step too far.Indeed I would posit that anonymity for an
accuser has already been taken beyond what is reasonable. On the subject of the costs to be borne by an
acquitted defendant there is IMHO a strong case for reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in
that acquittal.If CPS employ a silk the
diminishing principle of the level playfield should apply and if a fellow silk
secures a not guilty for his/her client tax payers` funds should be available
in recompense for the defendant.Fare dodgers are commonplace in the docks
of magistrates` courts the length and breadth of the country.Depending on the actual charge they are usually
punished by a maximum fine of £500.The case of the City financier who agreed to
an out of court repayment of £42,550 plus costs instead of a prosecution in
court has raised eyebrows.It could be argued that his wealth (he paid
the total sum within a few days) allowed him preferential treatment and the
avoidance of a criminal record.On the
other hand his payment into public coffers was of direct benefit to tax
payers.After all the hundreds of
thousands of fines handed out to those on welfare benefits are calculated
according to their means even allowing for their being convicted which this
chap has evaded and sometimes are out of kilter with the offenceeg a fine of £110 for having no vehicle
insurance when the costs of insurance can be three or more times more expensive.It seems odd that the case was not pursued to
its logical conclusion.Assuming the
evidence was overwhelming a guilty outcome would have allowed the railway
company to ask a court for compensation for lost revenue.Perhaps that not being the case the
prosecution considered settlement was the best outcome in the
circumstances.We`ll probably never
know.

And finally a bit closer to home and the following of political correctness by the Magistrates`
Association takes it a further step along the yellow brick road.The Association has long had a policy of offering
honorary membership for senior judges. There are self contained arguments against
this policy on grounds that are pertinent to the realities of the situation. At
the last AGM in October six senior members of the judiciary were co-opted as honorary
members:- the Rt Hon The Lord Mackay of Clashfern KT FRSE, The Rt Hon The Lord
Irvine of Lairg, The Rt Hon The Lord Woolf, The Rt Hon The Lord Falconer of
Thoroton, The Rt Hon The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and The Rt Hon The
Lord Judge of Draycote.It has now been
decided that honorary membership should
be abolished.That decision has come
about because Lords Irvine, Phillips and Woolf are members of the men only
Garrick`s Club and rather than blackball those three for their apparent misogynistic tendencies in daring
to belong to a gentleman`s club the rules are being changed.Strange or not so strange to report there is
no mention of this decision on the Association`s members` section of its website
or else I`ve missed it within its nebulous labyrinthine structure.

Saturday, 12 April 2014

"Innocent until proven guilty" is axiomatic for a justice system to be
held in confidence by any society.It
could be argued that long term trends within our criminal justice whilst
remaining loyal to the letter of the law are nudging ever so silently to
impinge upon the spirit of the law. “Essential Case Management: Applying theCriminal Procedure Rules” December 2009
combined with CJSSS; Criminal Justice:
Simple, Speedy, Summary a worthy initiative of the previous government can
sometimes illustrate the difficult situations for unrepresented
defendants.

I don`t suppose there are any J.P.s who are unfamiliar with an
unrepresented defendant appearing for
trial and for him/her to change plea
owing to the last minute disclosure by the CPS of incriminating CCTV evidence.Earlier this week my court during a bail
hearing had before it a represented prolific offender on remand for other
matters against whom the only evidence, according to the CPS, was from CCTV seen by police but not by CPS.The defendant`s representative after taking
instructions told us that as her client had not seen the supposed evidence
against him his not guilty plea was repeated. The rhetorical question put to her was that
surely her client knew whether or not he was guilty. When pressed to disclose the grounds of her
client`s plea she informed us that drug addiction had affected his memory and
he could not be sure where he was on the date in question.He was remanded in custody on the current
matter and a date set for trial.

“Putting the prosecution to proof”, is no longer tenable for
defence lawyers.Are my antennae too
sensitive or is the level playing field just a touch out of kilter?

Thursday, 10 April 2014

Yesterday I described what is IMHO an
anomaly in the manner in which reminders to comply with the requirements of a
s.172 notice are handled.On an
extremely unusual day owing to the usual mix of incompetents, incompetence and omissions we sat also on a breach matter.The offender had had an extremely traumatic
upbringing in a war torn African country and had arrived here as a teenage
asylum seeker. He wasnow in his mid
twenties with an offending history of public order and drug convictions.He was before us for having breached his
mental health treatment requirement.The
probation officer sought to persuade us that we should fine him rather than
make his sentence more onerous or revoke and re-sentence.His representative explained that although
his English was of a high standard he could not engage with him with any depth.
The purpose of breach proceedings is to punish those who do not take advantage of
the disposals which have been offered in attempts to both punish and
rehabilitate.In this respect we
encountered another anomaly in a system which is full of them although it takes
a “perfect storm” for their existence to become apparent in the fog of legal
jargon.We decided to “punish” him by increasing his
MHTR from the current three months to
six.Discussing the case afterwards in an empty
courtroom all of us present were firmly of the opinion that a generation ago Mr X would
probably have been offered a bed in a place of safety staffed by full time
medical personnel qualified in the care of those with severe mental
disturbance.“Care in the Community” which
so often overseesthe patient falling into
the pit between the cracks in a failed system is long past its sell by date but
with the increasing financial problems besetting the NHS it is unlikely that finance
will ever again be made available for the long term in patient psychiatric care
urgently required by so many.In a similar fashion it is virtually a no
brainer that the current cash starved justice system will ever return to the
position it held in the minds of a previous generation of politicians;
unlike politicians of the ilk of Maria Miller, recently resigned Minister of Culture, who is quoted in today`s Times2 as stating
when she made a case for arts subsidy that it was suitable for “venture capital”
based solely on the “economic benefits” it would produce.To quote that Irish genious, “What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".

This is the kind of mind rot engulfing so
many of our political masters (and mistresses) which allows the populist
rhetoric of a certain N. Farage to so bewitch a nation.

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Sitting in court is never boring but
sometimes it is routine; nothing of interest then, like looking for a taxi on a rainy day,
suddenly two come along one after the other.
A morning traffic court consisted mainly
of those being prosecuted under s.172. I
described such a sitting on March 27th. It wasn`t until a more recent sitting last week that a
previously unnoticed anomaly in the process hit me. If police have had no reply within the 28 day deadline
to an initial notice sent to the
vehicle`s registered keeper a reminder notice
is sent requesting that the completed form is returned within seven days. Within that reminder is a little read paragraph
stating that even if the return of the original notice appears to have crossed
with the receipt of the reminder the
latter should still be returned fully completed to ensure compliance has been
made. The misinformation within what
should be a simple process is as
follows:- The statutory time allowed for
compliance i.e. the return of the form s.172 duly and accurately completed is
28 days. The additional time apparently
offered by the reminder is a courtesy. So
the obvious problem as happened at that last traffic court was that the
defendant had returned the original form on day 29 and one day later received a
reminder which he ignored having assumed that the first and only form he
returned would be sufficient. He sent it
without asking for proof of postage from the post office. The police, according to the CPS prosecuting,
never received that form. As a bench we
had two options as would any other bench in a similar case. We could rule that the 28 day limit for
receipt by police of a returned form was not complied with, find guilt proven and
perhaps in the extenuating circumstances dispose of the matter with no costs and an
absolute or conditional discharge or we
could find that within the apparent terms as offered by the reminder and having
had sufficient but not conclusive evidence of the reminder having been sent
within the extended period find the defendant not guilty. As a bench we were split and there that story
ends.

But surely in such matters which
are repeated thousands of times weekly if the police sent a reminder well within the
statutory period eg after 14 days fewer offenders would be caught out by their dilatoriness
or is that too simplistic for the boys
in blue? Can they not see that something
is missing in their approach? Common
sense perhaps.Part two of this tale will be for my next
post.

Thursday, 3 April 2014

Over the last decade or so the Daily Mail
reader has become a euphemism for the eponymous
right winger.For those old enough to remember, it mirrors the image once conjured up of the
flat cap wearing readers of the Daily Worker (1930-1966) now The Morning
Star.Whilst the latter tries with some
vigour to manipulate chosen facts to its political point of view the once fascist
leaning Mail seems now to be all too often getting its facts wrong in order to
appeal to a hang `em and flog `em remnant of a Tory Party the increasingly
ineffective leadership of which is torn
between its attempts of appeasement and its embarrassment.An
item in today`s Mail Online is demonstrative of this editorial attitude to
fact.

I would never be described by associates, both personal and
professional, by the pejorative term “do
gooder”.On the bench like the vast
majority of my colleagues I attempt to honour my oath of office; “I, _________
, do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady
Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to
all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or
favour, affection or ill will."And
that means, when it is appropriate, sending shoplifters to immediate custody for
the maximum term allowed in the magistrates` courts; namely six months.For the Mail to stir up public mutterings
against a supposedly “soft” judicial system by falsely claiming that currently the maximum
sentence is stifled by the fact that “current rules say shoplifters should not be jailed
for more than six weeks " is nothing
short of disgraceful.Indeed the whole
article smells of having been prepared with some outside input.

Having some intimate knowledge of the legal system from the inside, as others within the system
also do, I can make reasoned conclusions about matters such as mentioned
above.What is of greater personal
concern is not having inside knowledge of what is behind the headlines of
myriad other stories in the media whether on the subject of health, defence,
environment etc etc.As a paid up member
of the Association of Eurosceptics since I was nine years old I can understand perhaps
why the undimmed populist Nigel Farage was deemed to have easily won his
contests with Clegg on points decisions.For a public facing a general election a year from now this evident distrust of the current political class can be the beginning of a slide into a form of
politics more suited to Athens
or Paris or Rome.

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

Today is the second day in which the
criminal courts` activities have been and will be severely disrupted by the non
appearance of solicitors and probation personnel. I am not a natural sympathiser of strike
action and indeed could probably be described as a “Thatcherite” but I am
vehemently opposed to the budget cuts affecting legal services and all that is
encompassed by the term “law `n order”.I am 100% certain that if this government manages to further curtail the
rights of individuals when confronted by the power of the state in all its
forms these rights will never be recovered.For that simple reason I sincerely hope that those taking action today
have the wherewithal to continue until some sort of acceptable compromise is
achieved.